Why foreign intervention in Syria is unlikely

Michael Qaqish is a former political staffer who has worked with politicians at the three levels of government. He is now an independent communications professional, writer, and occasional radio and tv commentator on current affairs.

Earlier this week, we saw another attempt by UN special envoy Kofi Annan to end the massacre of innocent civilians in Syria under ruthless dictator Bashar Al-Assad.

In a press conference following meetings with the regime, Annan assured the world that talks went well and plans to stop the violence were underway without giving much more details.

According to the UN, as many as 10,000 people are believed to have been killed since the uprise against the Syrian president began 16 months ago.

Annan voiced his frustration with Gulf States in the region like Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are believed to be supplying the rebels with weaponry and hindering peace talks. He also criticized the West for their obsession with Russia and its actual influence in the conflict.

The intervention of western countries like the United States and Canada has been punier than one would hope in such circumstances.

But the politics of the Middle East has always been complex and opinions on the conflict vary widely from one camp to the next. However, most can agree that Syria is not easily comparable to Egypt or Libya where intervention seemed easier.

If NATO members wanted to take out Assad, they would have done so months ago irrelevant of any UN Security Council resolutions or Russian opposition. That is not the case however, and there clearly is no appetite for military intervention by foreign nations in Syria.

A few factors make the Syrian situation unique in comparison to previous uprisings in the region.

Firstly, the geographic location of Syria and it’s proximity to the Israeli border is a concern for many western countries. The Assad regime will have no problems attacking Israel in retaliation for any intervention by the U.S. or their allies. And while Egypt also borders Israel, former President Hosni Mubarak was always a moderate leader with close ties to the west, and respected for his diplomatic and peaceful demeanour with neighbouring countries.

Another factor was one that was learned from the Arab Spring and some of the recent elections that took place.

It’s important to remember that the protestors who began the Arab Spring were young adults who longed for better economic opportunities for their nations. In fact, that is how it all started in Tunisia with the young man who set himself on fire after the government banned him from selling fruits from an unlicensed cart. The uprising wasn’t based on ideology or extremism; it was about a better future for young people.

Following the toppling of a number of these dictators, a clear trend has started to emerge: the young protestors who are at the root of the Arab Spring are no longer playing a significant role in the governments being formed.

Of course many of them have exercised their democratic rights and voted, however, the parliamentary political void has been filled by the politically organized opposition, and in many instances, the official opposition has always been the Islamist groups. While Islamist groups differ from one country to the next, the domineering simplistic perception for many in the West is that they are part of one bloc and not necessarily the best partners for a volatile region.

The most recent example of this was in Egypt two weeks ago. The Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohammed Morsi won a close presidential race against the moderate Ahmed Shafiq who was a former Prime Minister with ties to the Mubarak regime. The election results illustrated how divided the people are on moving forward – 51 per cent to 48 per cent.

From those numbers emerge safety concerns for religious and ethnic minorities in the country. In Egypt, the particular concern was and continues to be for the Christian Copts who have already seen their private property and churches attacked since Mubarak was toppled.

For Syria the stakes are even higher and the conflict would be between Muslim factions. About 87 per cent of the Syrian population is Muslim, the majority of those, 74 per cent are Sunni and 13 per cent are Shia. President Assad belongs to the latter minority yet has managed to keep the Syrian people united under his watch.

Trepidation over the sparking of a civil war is another reason for the west to stay out. Annan subtly brought this point to the forefront by criticizing the rich Gulf State leaders, who are predominantly Sunni Muslims, for arming Syrian rebels during his press conference.

While 10,000 people may have died over the past year, the realities are that that number could double if Assad is toppled. And while we all cherish democracy and freedom, sometimes we must admit that the ruthless dictators who have governed the Middle East for decades were at least successful in maintaining stability for the region and ultimately the West.

With the ongoing complex dynamics of politics in the region, it shouldn’t be a surprise foreign intervention is proceeding with caution.